At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[SeanF]

That's a good shot. It does seem to lighten up in direct sunlight, but once in even the slightest shadow it goes *really* dark.
Just to be thorough, we're sure it's not MS-4, the black scheme?

- Sean F.

Pretty sure, note the black stack tops are markedly darker than the stacks themselves on the foremost DD, USS Clarke.

I see that... but the funnels themselves are raising another question. They are considerably lighter in full-sunlight than where the hull and turrets are receiving full sunlight, implying to me that either they were painted a different color than everything else, or that whatever paint was used was strongly affected by the heat in the funnels, wherease the very top of the funnel is stained darker by the exhaust. The funnel cap looks pretty uniform, so I'd lean toward a different color. The director and upper portion of the conn seem to be that same lighter tone as well. Of course, this mucks around with the official description of both Ms. 1 and Ms. 4, and proves or disproves neither.

I misplaced my copy of Classic Warships USN Battleships in Color for a couple days; now that I've found it, I've looked at the aforementioned Texas photo; the hull of that lifeboat is much lighter than the destroyer. They can't both be 5-D, even with different formulas.

Is there any consensus on whether the Mississippi is in 5-D in this photo?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014124.jpg

BTW, when I posed this question I didn't mean that a confirmed photo of a ship in 5-D must necessarily be in color - though it would be nice if it were. I'm just asking if any shot at all exists that could be used as a baseline for even the most rudimentary interpretation of other photos. When someone concludes that a ship in a photo looks much too dark to be 5-S (although freshly applied paint can be darker, especially in a black-and-white photo - unless your photo is picking up the wet sheen), but then since it's not almost pitch black someone else says it's too light for 5-D (although weathering and atmospheric effects make nothing look like its official, pristine color chip, and even during painting the first patches applied will have been drying longer than the final patches), and those are the only two choices, this whole thing is really frustrating. Like the implied dispute of whether the Washington, at her commissioning in May of 1941 right near the beginning of the 5-D era, is too light in photos to have actually been 5-D. Sometimes the "No, it's not 5-D" response is so strong that I want to ask, Was anything actually painted in 5-D, that we can see a photo of? Enterprise I know... but the only photo I've seen of her at that time (color, btw) has the entire side in shadow:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020630.jpg
The destroyer photo might well be a smoking gun, but since there was that Ms. 4 black scheme that was specifically meant for destroyers and on the books at the same time I only feel it prudent to probe that possibility.
Of course, the blame must be laid on the US Navy for having so ridiculously few photos available from that period! Darn them! (Until someone comes up with the negatives from the planned January 1942 Life special issue "The New Colors of the U.S. Navy" that got cancelled due to the outbreak of war...)


(Yes, I just made that up.)

- Sean F.

[Guest]

I see that... but the funnels themselves are raising another question. They are considerably lighter in full-sunlight than where the hull and turrets are receiving full sunlight, implying to me that either they were painted a different color than everything else, or that whatever paint was used was strongly affected by the heat in the funnels, wherease the very top of the funnel is stained darker by the exhaust. The funnel cap looks pretty uniform, so I'd lean toward a different color. The director and upper portion of the conn seem to be that same lighter tone as well. Of course, this mucks around with the official description of both Ms. 1 and Ms. 4, and proves or disproves neither.

Salt crystals from spray tends to lighten stacks severely as the water int he spray evaporates very quickly on a hot stack.

I misplaced my copy of Classic Warships USN Battleships in Color for a couple days; now that I've found it, I've looked at the aforementioned Texas photo; the hull of that lifeboat is much lighter than the destroyer. They can't both be 5-D, even with different formulas.

Yes they can, 5-D had at least three different formulas Texas' lifeboat looks like fresh 5-O (the original formula) to me not 5-D.

Is there any consensus on whether the Mississippi is in 5-D in this photo?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014124.jpg

Consensus is not needed, her records show Ms-1, feel free to go dig them up.

BTW, when I posed this question I didn't mean that a confirmed photo of a ship in 5-D must necessarily be in color - though it would be nice if it were. I'm just asking if any shot at all exists that could be used as a baseline for even the most rudimentary interpretation of other photos. When someone concludes that a ship in a photo looks much too dark to be 5-S (although freshly applied paint can be darker, especially in a black-and-white photo - unless your photo is picking up the wet sheen), but then since it's not almost pitch black someone else says it's too light for 5-D (although weathering and atmospheric effects make nothing look like its official, pristine color chip, and even during painting the first patches applied will have been drying longer than the final patches), and those are the only two choices, this whole thing is really frustrating. Like the implied dispute of whether the Washington, at her commissioning in May of 1941 right near the beginning of the 5-D era, is too light in photos to have actually been 5-D. Sometimes the "No, it's not 5-D" response is so strong that I want to ask, Was anything actually painted in 5-D, that we can see a photo of? Enterprise I know... but the only photo I've seen of her at that time (color, btw) has the entire side in shadow:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020630.jpg
The destroyer photo might well be a smoking gun, but since there was that Ms. 4 black scheme that was specifically meant for destroyers and on the books at the same time I only feel it prudent to probe that possibility.

There is a photo on Navsource, no I am not finding the link for you, of Reuben James in front of North Carolina. NC is in prewar gray and RB in Ms-2, you can just barely tell the 5-D from the boot. Further look at all the photos of ND when she's in Ms-12 (graded not splotched Ms-12mod) and look at her hull, it's 5-S...guess what caused that apparent black appearance...all either shot on ortho film or they are print from copy negatives. Panchrome shots of her show a mush lighter hull and there is one well lit broadside of her in that scheme where she is clearly blue. Washington was in Ms-1 and the provenance of the prints does matter, again her records state so and you're free to go find them. If he'll be so kind, Tracy is given permission to post the image he has of the chunk of Enterprise in 5-D laid over the Snyder & Short paint chips. You should note it is only discernible from black on a Munsell neutral chip, you should also note it sat in an envelope at NARA from sometime in 1942 until September 2006. Again, you are welcome to go dig through records and photos, then check film types via the negatives and figure it out.

[Tracy White]

Gentlemen; our recent guest is Ron Smith, formerly owner of AA Military Research, now back building satellites for NASA. He's been away for a couple of years but has somewhat of a vested interest in Arizona and Pearl Harbor camouflage, being the primary NARA researcher for the National Parks Service's Arizona model color. He, like others and myself, got quite beat up when the model was unveiled. He will piss some of you off with his manner but I assure you that he is very thorough and knowledgable; he just does not have much patience for idiocy or those who try and debate without trying to learn what they're debating first.

That said, the aforementioned Reuben James photo on Navsource is here.

The pictures of the piece of Enterprise in 5-D over the color chips are below. This was the piece that made us believe that Arizona was in 5-S, given how dark 5-D was.

[SeanF]

I see that... but the funnels themselves are raising another question. They are considerably lighter in full-sunlight than where the hull and turrets are receiving full sunlight, implying to me that either they were painted a different color than everything else, or that whatever paint was used was strongly affected by the heat in the funnels, wherease the very top of the funnel is stained darker by the exhaust. The funnel cap looks pretty uniform, so I'd lean toward a different color. The director and upper portion of the conn seem to be that same lighter tone as well. Of course, this mucks around with the official description of both Ms. 1 and Ms. 4, and proves or disproves neither.

Salt crystals from spray tends to lighten stacks severely as the water int he spray evaporates very quickly on a hot stack.

That makes good sense. I'm just surprised at how uniform the effect is.

I misplaced my copy of Classic Warships USN Battleships in Color for a couple days; now that I've found it, I've looked at the aforementioned Texas photo; the hull of that lifeboat is much lighter than the destroyer. They can't both be 5-D, even with different formulas.

Yes they can, 5-D had at least three different formulas Texas' lifeboat looks like fresh 5-O (the original formula) to me not 5-D.

Actually, that was my point there - however many formulas of 5-D there were, that Texas lifeboat is way too light to be 5-D of any variety so I'd suspect it to be 5-O also.

Is there any consensus on whether the Mississippi is in 5-D in this photo?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014124.jpg

Consensus is not needed, her records show Ms-1, feel free to go dig them up.

Being in Ms. 1 isn't the issue, it's whether it's the 5-D version of Ms. 1 - that's what I meant by consensus.

BTW, when I posed this question I didn't mean that a confirmed photo of a ship in 5-D must necessarily be in color - though it would be nice if it were. I'm just asking if any shot at all exists that could be used as a baseline for even the most rudimentary interpretation of other photos. When someone concludes that a ship in a photo looks much too dark to be 5-S (although freshly applied paint can be darker, especially in a black-and-white photo - unless your photo is picking up the wet sheen), but then since it's not almost pitch black someone else says it's too light for 5-D (although weathering and atmospheric effects make nothing look like its official, pristine color chip, and even during painting the first patches applied will have been drying longer than the final patches), and those are the only two choices, this whole thing is really frustrating. Like the implied dispute of whether the Washington, at her commissioning in May of 1941 right near the beginning of the 5-D era, is too light in photos to have actually been 5-D. Sometimes the "No, it's not 5-D" response is so strong that I want to ask, Was anything actually painted in 5-D, that we can see a photo of? Enterprise I know... but the only photo I've seen of her at that time (color, btw) has the entire side in shadow:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020630.jpg
The destroyer photo might well be a smoking gun, but since there was that Ms. 4 black scheme that was specifically meant for destroyers and on the books at the same time I only feel it prudent to probe that possibility.

There is a photo on Navsource, no I am not finding the link for you, of Reuben James in front of North Carolina. NC is in prewar gray and RB in Ms-2, you can just barely tell the 5-D from the boot. Further look at all the photos of ND when she's in Ms-12 (graded not splotched Ms-12mod) and look at her hull, it's 5-S...guess what caused that apparent black appearance...all either shot on ortho film or they are print from copy negatives. Panchrome shots of her show a mush lighter hull and there is one well lit broadside of her in that scheme where she is clearly blue.

This one for example?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015500.jpg
Yeah, I see what you mean. Excellent example of a known 5-S surface looking extremely dark.

Washington was in Ms-1 and the provenance of the prints does matter, again her records state so and you're free to go find them.

As with the Mississippi example above, the question isn't whether or not it was Ms. 1, but whether it was a 5-D Ms. 1. This stems from a caption in the Classic Warships book, page 45, that says it might have been 5-S; and that the contrast between the dark hull and the black boot on Washington is much starker than in the Reuben James shot. Granted, the Classic Warships book also states the Washington photos were lightened to show detail, in which case the resulting apparent hull shade has pulled away from the shade of the glossier true-black boot paint by a wide margin.

If he'll be so kind, Tracy is given permission to post the image he has of the chunk of Enterprise in 5-D laid over the Snyder & Short paint chips. You should note it is only discernible from black on a Munsell neutral chip, you should also note it sat in an envelope at NARA from sometime in 1942 until September 2006. Again, you are welcome to go dig through records and photos, then check film types via the negatives and figure it out.

Thanks for sharing that again; that is so dark, it really makes one wonder what the USN was thinking - both the pretense of terming it "gray" at all, and why you'd want your big, capital ships painted like that. In the camoflage documents, they mention how no camoflage scheme is effective when a ship is silhouetted in front of the sun - and here was a paint scheme that effectively has the ship silhouetted in any light condition, even standing out against the night sky (in the commentary explaining why Ms. 1 was being discontinued.)! You'd think they'd've been able to figure that out after the very first ship was painted that way. If it would even take that long.

- Sean F.

[Guest]

Salt crystals from spray tends to lighten stacks severely as the water int he spray evaporates very quickly on a hot stack.

That makes good sense. I'm just surprised at how uniform the effect is.

Look at enough photos and you see it all the time, even on Ms-21. You're also forgetting to allow for the light angle.

Is there any consensus on whether the Mississippi is in 5-D in this photo?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014124.jpg

Consensus is not needed, her records show Ms-1, feel free to go dig them up.

Being in Ms. 1 isn't the issue, it's whether it's the 5-D version of Ms. 1 - that's what I meant by consensus.[/quote]

Do not assume I mean anything other than the measure as defined in SHIPS-2 unless I specifically state otherwise. Had I meant a Measure 1 pattern in other colors I would have clearly said so.

There is a photo on Navsource, no I am not finding the link for you, of Reuben James in front of North Carolina. NC is in prewar gray and RJ in Ms-2, you can just barely tell the 5-D from the boot. Further look at all the photos of NC when she's in Ms-12 (graded not splotched Ms-12mod) and look at her hull, it's 5-S...guess what caused that apparent black appearance...all either shot on ortho film or they are print from copy negatives. Panchrome shots of her show a mush lighter hull and there is one well lit broadside of her in that scheme where she is clearly blue.

This one for example?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015500.jpg
Yeah, I see what you mean. Excellent example of a known 5-S surface looking extremely dark.

That and about 90% of the other photos of her in that scheme. Knowing what you're looking at down to film type is critical, provenance. She also shows a patchiness indicating a thin coat and it appears she has some gloss to her, possibly from the 44 gloss factor #5 base coat. NOTE, I corrected RB to RJ and ND to NC above.

Washington was in Ms-1 and the provenance of the prints does matter, again her records state so and you're free to go find them.

As with the Mississippi example above, the question isn't whether or not it was Ms. 1, but whether it was a 5-D Ms. 1. This stems from a caption in the Classic Warships book, page 45, that says it might have been 5-S; and that the contrast between the dark hull and the black boot on Washington is much starker than in the Reuben James shot. Granted, the Classic Warships book also states the Washington photos were lightened to show detail, in which case the resulting apparent hull shade has pulled away from the shade of the glossier true-black boot paint by a wide margin.

See my comment above about assuming I mean anything other than the measure as specified in SHIPS-2. Again note I said "her records" and do not assume I mean photos. You should also know that if a shot is stamped "Copy Neg" or No Neg" then it is automatically dismissed for anything other than pattern when I look at it for camo, there are valid reasons for this and I will not explain them for the hundredth time. Lighting (angle and intensity), background, film type, filters used all affect how the final print looks let alone games played with digital files to pretty them up for web viewing. Shine a bright enough light at the right angle and even flat black can be made to look white, add any gloss to it and it gets worse. One further hint, Mississippi and Washington were painted with Norfolk manufactured 5-D using the specified materials; Enterprise and the PH BB's were painted with Mare Island manufactured 5-D and Mare Island had major problems obtaining the specified materials which is one of several reasons 5-D was discontinued.

If he'll be so kind, Tracy is given permission to post the image he has of the chunk of Enterprise in 5-D laid over the Snyder & Short paint chips. You should note it is only discernible from black on a Munsell neutral chip, you should also note it sat in an envelope at NARA from sometime in 1942 until September 2006. Again, you are welcome to go dig through records and photos, then check film types via the negatives and figure it out.

Thanks for sharing that again; that is so dark, it really makes one wonder what the USN was thinking - both the pretense of terming it "gray" at all, and why you'd want your big, capital ships painted like that. In the camoflage documents, they mention how no camoflage scheme is effective when a ship is silhouetted in front of the sun - and here was a paint scheme that effectively has the ship silhouetted in any light condition, even standing out against the night sky (in the commentary explaining why Ms. 1 was being discontinued.)! You'd think they'd've been able to figure that out after the very first ship was painted that way. If it would even take that long.

- Sean F.

Yep, it is extremely dark. It was also made at Mare Island possibly with alternate materials. Find the films from the "hit & run raids" and photos of CV-6 in Ms-1 and you'll see she's damned near black in most of them (excepting chalking). Films of WV and CA being raised at PH show their hulls as almost dead black as well but their upperworks are never as dark as their hulls in those films nor in the attack day photos known to be printed from the original negatives (and those are damned few of the common images).

[Tracy White]

Thanks for sharing that again; that is so dark, it really makes one wonder what the USN was thinking - both the pretense of terming it "gray" at all, and why you'd want your big, capital ships painted like that. In the camoflage documents, they mention how no camoflage scheme is effective when a ship is silhouetted in front of the sun - and here was a paint scheme that effectively has the ship silhouetted in any light condition, even standing out against the night sky (in the commentary explaining why Ms. 1 was being discontinued.)! You'd think they'd've been able to figure that out after the very first ship was painted that way. If it would even take that long.

Don't forget that they were trying to hide ships in two different "medium;" sea and sky. While the dark stands out against the sky when dealing with surface ships, it's much more effective than a light color in hiding ships from aerial observation & attack. So, given that the majority of the fleet was camouflaged against aircraft (dark), do you think the "conventional wisdom" that the US Navy was still trying to fight a battleship war until Pearl Harbor holds much water? (I realize this wasn't an assertion of yours)

One further hint, Mississippi and Washington were painted with Norfolk manufactured 5-D using the specified materials; Enterprise and the PH BB's were painted with Mare Island manufactured 5-D and Mare Island had major problems obtaining the specified materials which is one of several reasons 5-D was discontinued.

Not even that; evidence suggests that the pacific fleet was originally painted in 5-D that was converted from the prewar #5 Standard Navy Gray. So there could even be two 5-Ds in the same picture depending on a whole mess of variables we haven't been able to chase down yet.

[JFROHOCK]

It may be unfair to ask but all I am looking for is an opinion. If I were to assume that the superstructure decks were linolium, would that hold true for the topmost superstructure platform deck(range finder platform)? It would really stand out having a large area painted red/brown and surrounded by whatever the base color of the ship.

[SeanF]

That makes good sense. I'm just surprised at how uniform the effect is.

Look at enough photos and you see it all the time, even on Ms-21. You're also forgetting to allow for the light angle.

No, I'm not - the funnel is round, catching the light at all different angles. The uniformity I'm seeing is consistent with a curved surface in sunlight. (I'm not arguing the conclusion - just stating that my comments were made in full consideration of light angle.)

Do not assume I mean anything other than the measure as defined in SHIPS-2 unless I specifically state otherwise. Had I meant a Measure 1 pattern in other colors I would have clearly said so.

Please don't get mad at me for not assuming facts not in evidence. This line of discussion involves the substitution of 5-S for 5-D via supplemental order which did not change the official designation of "Ms. 1" My question regarded the 5-S vs. 5-D question, and your answer was that it was Ms. 1 - which is no answer at all, unless I know your frame of reference - which I then asked for (in a roundabout way) and have now received. Thank you, and I will keep this fact in mind from here on out. (But please note: Sometimes it's not easy to tell which "Guest" is talking, and thus which frame of reference is being used - hence some simple, non-threatening questons are appropriate for clarification. And I certainly didn't mean to threaten or offend.)

That and about 90% of the other photos of her in that scheme. Knowing what you're looking at down to film type is critical, provenance. She also shows a patchiness indicating a thin coat and it appears she has some gloss to her, possibly from the 44 gloss factor #5 base coat. NOTE, I corrected RB to RJ and ND to NC above.

I've noticed that it seems to happen especially frequently in newspaper prints of photos. Not that I'd use one of those for a model building reference. And regarding the NC and the thinness of the coat,wasn't that the same coat that chipped off so badle at the bow and stern?

See my comment above about assuming I mean anything other than the measure as specified in SHIPS-2. Again note I said "her records" and do not assume I mean photos. You should also know that if a shot is stamped "Copy Neg" or No Neg" then it is automatically dismissed for anything other than pattern when I look at it for camo, there are valid reasons for this and I will not explain them for the hundredth time. Lighting (angle and intensity), background, film type, filters used all affect how the final print looks let alone games played with digital files to pretty them up for web viewing. Shine a bright enough light at the right angle and even flat black can be made to look white, add any gloss to it and it gets worse. One further hint, Mississippi and Washington were painted with Norfolk manufactured 5-D using the specified materials; Enterprise and the PH BB's were painted with Mare Island manufactured 5-D and Mare Island had major problems obtaining the specified materials which is one of several reasons 5-D was discontinued.

When you said "her records," I in no way assumed you meant photos and would never assume such a thing. If anything in my followup comments implied such an assumption, it was unintentional and I apologize.
I am certainly no photo analysis expert; I have read your previous descriptions of the myriad of issues involved, and I'm not trying to second-guess - rather, I acknowledge these issues and am deferring to expert knowledge. And how am I supposed to know which shots are "Copy Neg" or "No Neg," when I don't have access to that information and have seldom, if ever, seen those notations in the materials I do have access to? That's why I ask the questions.
That's what got me started on this line of questioning in the first place. I'm not asking for an in-depth archive dive. What I am asking is: among the experts, were there any shots among those available to common modelers (on-line or purchaseable in books) that really struck as capturing the "feel" of what 5-D looks like applied to an entire, in-service ship, with all the light angles inherent to a complex 3-dimensional object? An official color chip or well-preserved, freshly painted fragment tells the start of the color story - after that the "art" side of modelling comes into play, where issues of fading, weathering, and scale effect are considered (though I have seen scale effect staken out of the "artistic impression" realm into hard mathematical optical science).
For example, the Mississippi shot referenced previously is not in dispute as to being in original Ms. 1 and it also looks very dark - does it, in the experts' opinion, capture the "feel" of 5-D, knowing through the research and analysis that has already been done on the subject of 5-D paint what it ought to look like? As a counterexample, though the Washington is undisputedly in original Ms. 1 in her commissioning day photos, the shots as published in the Classic Warships book and also posted online do not capture the "feel" of 5-D, based on previous comments in this thread about how dark 5-D should be, and on the the much stronger contrast between her hull and boot than that seen on the Reuben James. (The negatives might do the trick just fine - but we don't all have access to the negatives at this very moment. From what we do have, I presume it's a bad example that does not capture the "feel.") The only reason I question the possibly "smoking gun" color photo of the destroyers are the simultaneous existence of the true black Ms. 4 scheme. (Did the black paint of the day also have a reputation for chalking? If not, then there's a possible "back door" confirmation of 5-D)

- Sean F.

[dsk]

A quick question on the loading machines. What specifically were they used for? Loading practice drills?

[Tracy White]

Since that era of gun was hand loaded, the faster your team could load, the faster the gun could fire. So it would allow the team to practice loading; I've heard of competitions between gun crews on a ship for fastest times, etc..

[Bondoman]

Since that era of gun was hand loaded, the faster your team could load, the faster the gun could fire. So it would allow the team to practice loading; I've heard of competitions between gun crews on a ship for fastest times, etc..

I know the redlegs do that too. And I heard a story of overheating the tube and having a cartridge split in the breech. One interesting detail I came across on the Borodino was that the ammo for the 47mm guns was not stored in ready boxes, but was supplied via vertical ammunition elevators to the gun decks. They look like square garbage chutes extending up several decks.

[Tracy White]

We did that for some of the 5" guns, or it was passed from below through scuttles.

[dsk]

Since that era of gun was hand loaded, the faster your team could load, the faster the gun could fire. So it would allow the team to practice loading; I've heard of competitions between gun crews on a ship for fastest times, etc..

Thanks for the answer. I thought it might be a stupid question, but I figured if I didn't ask anyway I'd only be stupider.

[Tracy White]

Never stop asking questions. I've found errors in long-established "truths" simply by asking the right question.

[Hippy Ed]

Since that era of gun was hand loaded, the faster your team could load, the faster the gun could fire. So it would allow the team to practice loading; I've heard of competitions between gun crews on a ship for fastest times, etc..

Thanks for the answer. I thought it might be a stupid question, but I figured if I didn't ask anyway I'd only be stupider.

The only stupid question is the one not asked Right Tracy?

[Tracy White]

Oh, there's plenty of stupid questions!

Check with my wife, I'm responsible for many of them!

[dsk]

Part of the problem lies with being a landlubber who has no idea what these parts of a ship are for. Normally ship models are so poorly detailed anyway it doesn't matter. But in the case of the new 1/200 Arizona kit there are a bunch of little doodads without names that have to be assembled and glued. I saw the loading machine, noticed it looked like a 5" AA gun minus the barrel, and had to wonder what in tarnation it's for. I also had no idea what the projection booth was for until I read Paul Stillwell's book. Once a person realizes what these things do and what they're called it makes building the model itself a lot more exciting, because you actually know what in tarnation you're building!

[Tracy White]

Barbara Tuchman once said, �Research is endlessly seductive. Writing is hard work.� I find modeling to be similar; I love the research and learning about a ship and find sometimes that it makes me want to make this detail or that fitting look a little better. "This was the mount so-and-so commanded, got to make that look good!"

[Cliffy B]

Barbara Tuchman once said, �Research is endlessly seductive. Writing is hard work.� I find modeling to be similar; I love the research and learning about a ship and find sometimes that it makes me want to make this detail or that fitting look a little better. "This was the mount so-and-so commanded, got to make that look good!"

Truer words sir.

[Hippy Ed]

Oh, there's plenty of stupid questions!

Check with my wife, I'm responsible for many of them!